Recommended Posts

WITH increasing public concern regarding repeat criminal offenders, critics and experts have been divided as to what approach would deter former convicts from committing crimes again after being released from jail.

Many public members – often angry with perpetrators of high-profile crimes including rape-murder or mass killing – have called for execution of convicted offenders, instead of life imprisonment or lengthy jail sentences.

However, there is a consensus among experts in criminology and the justice system that harsh penalties like life imprisonment and capital punishment have been proven ineffective at deterring repeat crimes, a recent seminar heard.

The seminar, entitled “The role of probation in tackling the problem of repeat criminal offences”, was organised by the Department of Probation earlier this month.

Law professor Prathan Watanavanich, an expert in criminology and justice procedures, citing findings of a research study, said that imprisonment was not an effective deterrent to prevent crimes.

Severe penalties had “only a little deterring effect” on criminals, Prathan noted.
“Also, there has been no proof that capital punishment can deter prospective perpetrators of murders,” Prathan said, citing statistics collected over the past five decades.

He said the study found that the certainty of getting arrested was “very effective” in deterring people from committing crimes.

“The certainty of getting arrested is a deterrent that is even more powerful than getting punished,” the law professor concluded.

Prathan said this finding could be applied to a current problem: Many convicts on probation or parole have not been punished for breaking the conditions of their early release. The problem, he said, is parole officers have no power to arrest people for breaking parole conditions.
The expert suggested that parole officers should be empowered to make arrests in such cases.

“Importantly, we need to make people know that they will get arrested for committing offences, and they will be rearrested for breaking the conditions for their early release,” Prathan said.

“If that can be put into practice, we will see a decline in repeat crime offenders.”

Public Prosecutor Uthai Athivej said the idea of getting rid of repeat crime offenders from society was “too harsh”, and that in practice capital punishment had been unable to deter repeat offences.

Judge Supakit Yaempracha suggested that criminal offenders should be properly classified and dealt with, both while they served their time in jail and after their release. This approach should help prevent repeat crimes, he said.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Complete rubbish. The death penalty is an extremely effective deterrent (100%) for repeat crimes from the person that is executed. Life in prison also prevents that person from committing crimes (except against other prisoners) for the rest of their life.

7

2

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Complete rubbish. The death penalty is an extremely effective deterrent (100%) for repeat crimes from the person that is executed. Life in prison also prevents that person from committing crimes (except against other prisoners) for the rest of their life.

totally agree .... and if used in other countries for drug sellers, pushers and traffickers they wouldn't be in such a mess.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Singapore is an example where capital punishment is effective as a deterrent.

24 minutes ago, steven100 said:

totally agree .... and if used in other countries for drug sellers, pushers and traffickers they wouldn't be in such a mess.

34 minutes ago, Ahab said:

Complete rubbish. The death penalty is an extremely effective deterrent (100%) for repeat crimes from the person that is executed. Life in prison also prevents that person from committing crimes (except against other prisoners) for the rest of their life.

really?

Singapore just executed a Malaysian Man based on circumstantial evidence for drug trafficking.

If capital punishment is reserved for a certain crime. Wouldn't it be the utmost importance for all the evidence to be without a doubt before the sentence is mete out?

If there is some evidence to suggest otherwise, I would prefer a life or lengthy sentence for drug offences just in case the justice system does not kill someone wrongly.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

if Death Penalty is an effective deterrent then there shouldn't be any crimes committed at all for that particular punishment.

Don't get me wrong, I would sure want to bash the head in for any rapist murderer but would leave that to the justice system but would that really stop the crime?

More has to be done to educate and prevent crimes like this from happening.

Using this logic all laws are ineffective because they do not effectively prevent crimes? Let us take that a step further and maybe we should get rid of all the laws that do not provide a 100% deterrent (which is all of them). The criminal justice system is about punishment and bashing in the head of a rapist/murderer provides punishment and prevents that person from ever hurting another human being ever. 100% effective., 100% of the time

if death penalty is 100% effective, then why are there still Drug abusers and Drug traffickers in Singapore? I thought its supposed to be 100% ?

The death penalty in Singapore is 100 % effective at deterring repeat offenders. Since when did a law have to be 100 % effective at deterring the crime to be effective. Does this means that all laws currently on the books are ineffective and should be repealed? Of course not! It is a strawman argument reserved only for the death penalty.

1

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Using this logic all laws are ineffective because they do not effectively prevent crimes? Let us take that a step further and maybe we should get rid of all the laws that do not provide a 100% deterrent (which is all of them). The criminal justice system is about punishment and bashing in the head of a rapist/murderer provides punishment and prevents that person from ever hurting another human being ever. 100% effective., 100% of the time

and your logic of a 100% is flawed as well. there is no 100% becos facts and statistics say so.

I did not say get rid of laws, I said the Laws have to be practiced and proved in court with the utmost respect in accordance to the crime committed because it is capital punishment and human lives we are talking about.

I have am Human I have feel anger too when I see someone else gets hurt and I do feel the need for the worst punishment for crimes like that against Humanity, but I am just pointing out for fairness and not for abuse of Laws.

Keep dreaming of your 100% perfect world becos there is no such thing.

2

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

The death penalty in Singapore is 100 % effective at deterring repeat offenders. Since when did a law have to be 100 % effective at deterring the crime to be effective. Does this means that all laws currently on the books are ineffective and should be repealed? Of course not! It is a strawman argument reserved only for the death penalty.

SHow me the stats for a fact that it is 100%?

these traffickers and drug abusers might already have committed the crimes a few times before they are caught.

And the the drug kingpins who sent the drug mules into Singapore to die are still committing the same crime regardless of the death penalty.

So there is no 100% like you claim. Unless you can show me Singapore is Drug free then no 100%.

You can argue all you want, but the Drug Crimes Statistics are a fact in Singapore.

Edited August 12, 2017 by Moonmooncorrect spelling.

3

1

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

The death penalty in Singapore is 100 % effective at deterring repeat offenders. Since when did a law have to be 100 % effective at deterring the crime to be effective. Does this means that all laws currently on the books are ineffective and should be repealed? Of course not! It is a strawman argument reserved only for the death penalty.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

The death penalty in Singapore is 100 % effective at deterring repeat offenders. Since when did a law have to be 100 % effective at deterring the crime to be effective. Does this means that all laws currently on the books are ineffective and should be repealed? Of course not! It is a strawman argument reserved only for the death penalty.

And I quote you again.

12 minutes ago, Ahab said:

The death penalty in Singapore is 100 % effective at deterring repeat offenders. Since when did a law have to be 100 % effective at deterring the crime to be effective.

What are you on???

100% effective at deterring repeat offenders but does not have to be 100% effective at crime?